Islam

[canadianhorsefan]

Well, just want to see if anyone is interested why Islam is right.

canadianhorsefan

[bernee51]

Your Muslim's friends as nice to "Born Again" Christians traveling in their Muslim countries?

As long as they didn't abuse the priveldge by prosletizing.

Not too many beheadings and suicide bombings of the infidel non-Christian in my large backyard of the continental United States.

Not too many foreign forces invading either.

American soldiers are just people. Not mercenaries.

They are people working at the job of being soldiers. They are expected to kill people. They get paid for it.

. America is the country all others call on and rely on to save lives.

I don't remember too many Iraqi'a calling on the USofA to invade their country.

Not too many starving Africans demanding India come and save them from Muslim militants stealing what food is brought to them by Christian Ministries from the United States.

Ah Christianity and Africa...

I am reminded of Desmond Tutu's comment..."When the white man came with the bible in his hand and told us to close our eyes and pray, we had the land. When we opened them again, we had the bible and they had the land"

[McCulloch]

No country in need calls on the American apthetic anti-war peace protesters. They know they cannot rely on cowards.

During the war of agression by the USA against Viet Nam, my country welcomed many American anti-war peace protesters. These people were not given the option by your country to refuse to participate due to the imposition of the draft. Many of these draft-dogers have become leading Canadian citizens and have chosen to stay here even after being granted amnesty. These people are not cowards but people who had the courage to stand up for their beliefs.

[AlAyeti]

War of aggression against Viet Nam?

This statement proves my point about the intelligence of the Leftist view. The same minds that can shape their mouths to say that Islam is a religion of peace.

There are millions and millions of murdered South East asians that owe their deaths to the cowards from America that scurried to Canada like rats.

How many innocent people (and ironically many Muslims) have been killed by adherents to the "religion of Peace?"

It is best just to be honest and say that your stance is anti-America and anti-Christian plain and simple.

This thread is about Islam, Truth or Lie? Not about disgusting cowardly liars that want to smoke dope and get laid.

Islam, as the religion of peace can be viewed from its conception and and its actions until this very day. And the truth that testifies against the peacefulness of Islam brings in the verdict of. . . Lie. Unless we hold an accurate definition of the sword that has wrought Islam onto the world. Then, totalitarian rule which obviously defines Muslim actions anywhere Muslim power is established (by force), is undebatable.

But as a member of the three monotheistic religions, Islam does not claim to be, unless Christian and Jews ("Friends of each other NOT to be trusted") says the Koran, take on a 100% Islamic belief system. Which of course, is not only bizarre, but literally wipes away Jews and Christians. Precisely what a totalitarian regime wants. Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac not Ishmael. Jesus was actually crucified and not a trick of God's clever deception. To believe anything else disqualifies a person from being a practicing Jew and Christian. Precisely my point about the accuracy and therefore the truth of Mohommads holy-war machine.

It's like saying that you can be a Canadian, but can no longer believe that Canada has a history not interpreted through American history. Like those cowards that ran to Canada, truth is in the fact of the definition.

[McCulloch]

War of aggression against Viet Nam?

If it was not a war of aggression, then why did the US military not win the support of the locals? Would you say that it was a defensive war? The USA was afraid of Vietnamese boat people paddling to the shores of California and invading?

This thread is about Islam, Truth or Lie? Not about disgusting cowardly liars that want to smoke dope and get laid.

Sorry, I got off topic in response to something you said. However, fact: not all draft dodgers were cowardly liars and dope smokers, although perhaps some of them did toke occasionally.

It's like saying that you can be a Canadian, but can no longer believe that Canada has a history not interpreted through American history. Like those cowards that ran to Canada, truth is in the fact of the definition.

Canadians have always been aware of the influence of the USA on our history. From the war of aggression way back in 1812-1814 and providing refuge to the population of your country fleeing slavery, to providing refuge to draft-dodgers. We share UN, NATO, NAFTA and the illegal softwood embargo and the longest international border in the world.

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch,

I don't mean to get insulting but it is unavoidable when stating a position passionately and honestly. Darft-dodgers are niether good or bad they are just dishonest and are of course cowards. I hope that not one of them have ever visited the War memorial.

I have a good perspective on the South Vietnamese and Cambodians and the Thai, and how they feel about Americans. My father learned to speak read and write the language after years as a Marine serving in the war. He did something to help these people. They love us.

America tried to take over from the French and defend South East Asia from a war of aggression by communists. (Something Canadians seemingly want to become.) You do have a history book not printed in Massachusetts I hope.

Please leave slavery to Christian history, as if it weren't for Christians willing to take up arms and give their lives freeing the slaves, Muslim's would still be selling them to Americans in the south.

History is not a friend of the Leftist secular-socialist perspective. That is, the history not re-written by political correctness.

[McCulloch]

Draft-dodgers are niether good or bad they are just dishonest and are of course cowards.

I don't quite follow. In what way are people who refuse to be forced into killing in a foreign country being dishonest? While perhaps cowarice may have been a factor for some of them, it was not for others. I know, some of them are my neighbours.

Please leave slavery to Christian history, as if it weren't for Christians willing to take up arms and give their lives freeing the slaves, Muslim's would still be selling them to Americans in the south.

If it weren't for Christians, deists and even a few Canadians willing to take up arms and give their lives freeing the slaves, Muslim's would still be selling them to Christian Americans in the south.

[MagusYanam]

Let's see, where to begin?

Your view of people serving in the military is typically dishonoring of a leftist mindset.

"Islam" is a forged hammer. That there are sensible people that are Muslim's is to be expected.

Open-minded Islam?

There is no Jihad in the mouth of Jesus. Actually the exact opposite. And, please Jihad means war against others who are not Muslim's.

Don't give me this bull. You keep making the same arguments like a broken record and give no evidence whatsoever to back them up. I tell you that Islam is not a 'forged hammer' and give empirical evidence of this: Shirin Ebadi calling for change, the presence and continuing importance of the Shi'a / Sunni split, the presence of Islamic reformism. You tell me that Islam is a 'forged hammer' and where there should be evidence there is silence.

Jihad is the Arabic word for 'struggle'. Just as the English word 'struggle', it can be used in a number of different ways: holy war, struggle between good and evil, internal conflict within a person's soul. Only in the English is the term jihad narrowed down into just the 'holy war' sense.

Also, I never gave my opinion of the military. I would never join it in good conscience, but the reasons for that lead me into my next point.

Pathetic attempt at labeling miltary actions and to attribute them to Christianity. That's Bin Laden talking.

I didn't say that. Christians generally fight not for Christianity (because of the 30 Years' War, which you should go back on this thread and read up on), but for their countries. It's not Christianity which is responsible, but the nations which employ the Christians who believe that violence is justified in their names. A good example would be this quote.

Scientists make money or get one more Doctorate from designing WMD's.
Soldiers serve their country.

Serving one's country is not honourable or altruistic - it's just as much a form of self-interest as the scientist working for his doctorate (although the scientist has individual or small-group interests and the soldier group interests opposed to other groups). When nations fight, the soldiers don't give their lives for 'others'. Usually, they generally try to survive their opponents' firing at them. Get into the motivations for joining the army, though, and most military folks I've heard say it's in the interests of 'this' or 'our' country. Not for Viet Nam, not for Iraq.

And no, it's not Bin Laden talking. It's common sense, Westphalian-style.

American soldiers are just people. Not mercenaries.

What? Mercs aren't people?

No country in need calls on the American apthetic anti-war peace protesters. They know theycannot rely on cowards.

They rejoice when the United States military arrives to bring food, clothing and medical supplies as well as guns, to save lives.

If you had any sense of reason, boy, would your face be red. Guns saving lives? Wow. I would be remembering your Samuel Colt example (poor though it was in context) if I were you. That's like the argument the U.S. government made when it bombed Hiroshima, that in the long run, it saved lives. Obviously, both examples are ludicrous. Neither guns nor WMDs save lives. Nor do the people who use them unless they forgo them and go straight to the food, clothes and medicine bit.

And that any non-military traveller can provide serving in any foreign aid / Peace Corps programme.

This statement proves my point about the intelligence of the Leftist view. The same minds that can shape their mouths to say that Islam is a religion of peace.

When did McCulloch (or I, or Dilettante) ever say Islam was a religion of peace? I don't think it can claim that title yet in its present, critical state. However, you should stop portraying it as an evil monolithic religion when all the evidence points the other way. Amongst themselves, Muslims are as divided as we Christians are.

On the other hand, a caveat to McCulloch: Viet Nam was firstly and foremostly a war of national self-interest. We went in because we were afraid the French would lose Viet Nam to the communists, which was against our national self-interest - one really can't say we were the aggressors, though after awhile we did replace the French as the major malefactors in the eyes of most Vietnamese.

It is best just to be honest and say that your stance is anti-America and anti-Christian plain and simple.

It isn't often you come across such a gem depicting the largely militant Westphalian attitude so common among American Christians today. That someone would say first that someone is anti-American before portraying them as anti-Christian just proves my point further.

Precisely what a totalitarian regime wants.

Also, you keep using the word 'totalitarian' in reference to Islamic rule. This is a highly misleading neologism. 'Totalitarian' refers to a total control by the state of peoples' personal lives and activities and is used almost always to refer only to fascism and communism. Iran, though an incredibly oppressive theocracy, is not 'totalitarian', for example - the state doesn't play the sole role in the political and personal lives of its citizens. If you're going to use a buzzword in your argument, as I've said countless times before, get it right!

As to the actual argument, don't give us this bull! The Ottoman Empire in the past 700 years made a policy of not oppressing Christians and Jews on a religious basis! It's only Islamic fundamentalists who demand total conformity of other 'people of the book', and it's never a good idea to characterise an entire religion by the beliefs and actions of a few extremists who think all Christians and Jews should convert or die. That's what I've been arguing all along - Islam is not a monolith - and all the evidence so far presented proves me right.

He did something to help these people. They love us.

'Something' and 'they' never defended an empirical argument yet. We're listening; give us the details!

America tried to take over from the French and defend South East Asia from a war of aggression by communists. (Something Canadians seemingly want to become.) You do have a history book not printed in Massachusetts I hope.

You do know that the Cold War is over, right? That communism is for all intents and purposes dead, right? The only real communist states left today are (let's see) North Korea and Cuba. That's it. Canada's Communist and Marxist-Leninist parties don't even have representation in Parliament - the only political parties currently there are the Liberals (moderate liberal), the Conservatives (moderate conservative), the New Democrats (liberal) and the Bloc Québécois (Quebec sovereigntist).

History is not a friend of the Leftist secular-socialist perspective.

And every good historian would disagree with you. History doesn't take sides, only historians do. Sam Huntington and Howard Zinn would disagree on a lot of things, but both have evidence for their viewpoints. Same with Bernard Lewis and Edward Said. History is always in the eye of the beholder.

[AlAyeti]

First, this is the last reference to my father that I will present while we are debating anything with deserters and antiwar apathists/activists mentioned.

Just to try to defend the word "Jihad" as something other than killing non-Muslim's is blindness, both with intellect and sight. Muslim's may present it that way but current affairs dictate otherwise. Saudi Arabia AND Saddam Hussein were sending money to Jihadists for doing what Jihad "is."

Historically in Muslim countries, Christians and Jews were tolerated IF they paid tax and IF they didn't try to shake off the Muslim yoke "on a religious basis." Now, we can fairly compare American-Southern slavery to Islam. If the Southerners didn't murder, rape, separate families and otherwise didn't treat their slaves badly, would that be slavery or just letting them live within the rulers domain?

Sorry, but I have the right to view Islam as evil and monolithic because I have eyes to see what Muslim women and men and especially non-Muslim's go through in Islamic countries. In Saudi Arabia, can women drive cars? And it gets worse from there. Is not Saudi Arabia where the hajj is undertaken? Pretty Islamic place to find an opinion of Islam to me.

Any Time magazines in Iraq or Iran? Or Sierra Leone or Muslim parts of Nigeria?

Islamic totalitarianism, is not the creation of a new word or word usage or concept. It is an empirical fact. The only buzzword that should be used about Islam is "beheadings." Where are the voices of the non-violent peace marchers. They are on anti-Bush signs in San Francisco. Empiricism hurts.

I pointed out "anti-American" first because that is the "diversity" thing to do, no? Many of the Americans beheaded in Iraq I believe, may not have been Christians. Though I know the Jihadists wished it were so, I need to be respectful of my non-Christian fellow-citizens.

I have little respect or caring for the Constitution so believe me, I'm not all that Americanny. But I do care about my neighbor like I do myself. There is no greater gift . . . how does the rest go? "We" non-violent "Christians" know it all too well.

Anti-war protesters are provable cowards who hold parties in the street and make no effort to fight tyranny where it really exists. That is not a provable statement?

The cold war is over? Who cares. The real war being waged by communists is still taking the lives of Christians in good ol'China as we speak.

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch: "If it weren't for Christians, deists and even a few Canadians willing to take up arms and give their lives freeing the slaves, Muslim's would still be selling them to Christian Americans in the south."



Abolition. Christian movement or not?

[Dilettante]

To Al Ayeti:

Abolitionists were very often religiously motivated Christians, no doubt about that. However, it is also true that Christians were divided over the issue of slavery, and some of them justified slave-ownership.

Draft-dodgers can be cowards, but they can also be making an important ethical choice. Both the pacifist and the soldier can act motivated by their conscience and their creed. Of course, if a country is attacked, pacifism won't stop the invaders from invading. So I'm not arguing that pacifism is necessarily smart or practical (many times it isn't), I just wanted to point out that it is often an ethical choice.

To Magus Yanam:

Historical facts are not in the eye of the beholder. Interpretation of those facts frequently is. But a good historian should try to avoid biased interpretations as much as possible.